This blog is about debating political issues, with specific reference to human rights

Contamination of Food

In Pakistan, while lack of access to food and the resultant malnutrition pose a grave threat to public health, the fact that a part of what we consume is contaminated adds to the dilemma. According to a study conducted by Aga Khan University and a Japanese institution, reported in Tuesday’s paper, samples of chicken sold in Karachi were found to have high levels of arsenic. Moreover, the effects of leaded petrol — phased out in the country 15 years ago — were still evident in the food chain. Both chemical elements are, of course, toxic for humans and can cause neurological problems. The research suggested that arsenic, found in groundwater, finds its way into chicken feed and poultry vaccines. These could be a source of the deadly chemical entering the food chain.

While the results of this study are indeed disturbing, as experts have rightly pointed out there is no cause for undue panic and for people to stop consuming foods such as chicken altogether. For example, hand washing can limit exposure to lead, while focusing on more rigorous food safety standards and ensuring water is safe can address the problem of arsenic in food. However, on a larger scale, interventions by the state are needed to ensure increased monitoring of food processes in order to prevent contaminants from entering the food chain. More research is required to determine the exact situation. Efforts must be made to cleanse the country’s water supply of arsenic and other harmful substances; many projects have been initiated to mitigate arsenic in different parts of the country. The federal and provincial governments need to investigate how these interventions can be replicated on a larger scale.

Also, the poultry feed and vaccines that result in arsenic contamination must be banned. In short, the state must make a much more robust effort to, in the words of the World Health Organisation, ensure that the food chain is free from contaminants “from farm to plate”.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View all posts by alaiwah